Urban Homes Pty Ltd v Allan
[2014] QCAT 2
| CITATION: | Urban Homes Pty Ltd v Allan & Anor [2014] QCAT 002 |
| PARTIES: | Urban Homes Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Mr Stephen Allan and Mrs Judith Allan (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | BDL118-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Building Matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 4 April and 26 July 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Browne |
| DELIVERED ON: | 6 January 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Urban Homes Pty Ltd to pay Mr and Mrs Allan the amount of $18,772.00 by 4 pm on 3 February 2014. 2. Urban Homes Pty Ltd and Mr and Mrs Allan to file in the Tribunal and deliver to the other party any written submissions in relation to costs by 4 pm on 20 January 2014. 3. Urban Homes Pty Ltd and Mr and Mrs Allan to file in the Tribunal and deliver to the other party any written submissions in reply by 4 pm on 3 February 2014. |
| CATCHWORDS: | BUILDING – where the builder issued a progress claim for payment – where the builder claimed costs escalation for alleged delays – where owners failed to pay the progress claim – where builder suspended the works – where owners purported to terminate the contract – where the builder seeks final payment for completed building work Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 s 77 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Brian Maloney, Managing Director, representing Urban Homes Pty Ltd |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Stephen Allan and Mrs Judith Allan |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr and Mrs Allan had plans to build a house on a vacant block of land at Lot 2 Utecht Street, Cornubia, Queensland. After several months of preparing their “wish list”, Mr and Mrs Allan signed a residential master builders contract on 31 August 2011 for the construction of a house with Urban Homes Pty Ltd (the builder).
The contract price of $337,110.00 was payable in six stages as progress claims. The final progress claim was payable at practical completion. The contract stated that the date for commencement was 12 September 2011 with 289 days provided under the contract as the construction period. The builder was approved to carry out the building work in a development application notice dated 3 October 2011.[1]
[1]Exhibit marked “8”. Mr Mahoney, on behalf of the builder, gave evidence that construction commenced on 13 October 2011. Mr and Mrs Allan contend that site was available from 12 September 2011.
The house never reached the practical completion stage. During construction there was an issue about alleged delays related to the selection of kitchen cabinets and tiles. The builder issued a progress claim for payment at the fixing stage on 1 March 2012 together with a tax invoice for payment in the amount of $64,194.90. This amount included claims for variations and a claim for costs escalation in relation to the alleged delays in the installation of the kitchen cabinets.
Mr and Mrs Allan did not pay the progress claim for the fixing stage in full. The builder suspended the works on 9 March 2012 and filed an application in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 30 March 2012. The builder seeks a declaration that Mr and Mrs Allan have breached the contract by not paying the progress claim in full by the due date; and an order for the final payment for completed building work and damages by Mr and Mrs Allan in the amount of $19,782.40 plus interest and costs.
Mr and Mrs Allan filed a counter-application in the Tribunal on 2 May 2012 and took possession of the house, at 36 Utecht Street, on 25 May 2012. Mr and Mrs Allan seek a declaration that the builder has breached the contract by making a false claim for escalation costs in relation to the alleged delays and by stopping work and abandoning the site; and an order for the payment of damages by the builder in the amount of $109,887.70 including costs.
The matter proceeded to a hearing before the Tribunal over 2 days. At the conclusion of the hearing directions were made by the Tribunal in relation to the filing and exchange of written submissions. The Tribunal received final written submissions filed by the builder on 9 September 2013.
The builder relies on evidence given by Mr Brian Maloney, managing director, who also represented the builder at the hearing. Mr and Mrs Allan prepared a statement of evidence and Mrs Allan gave evidence at the hearing. Mr Darren Stohfeld, production manager, Imperial Kitchens, also attended the hearing, at the request of Mr and Mrs Allan to answer questions about the selection and installation of the kitchen cabinetry.
Both parties rely on expert evidence in relation to the costs to complete the building work under the contract. The expert witnesses, Michael Davies (engaged by the builder) and James Ford (engaged by Mr and Mrs Allan) attended an experts conclave and prepared a joint report dated 14 December 2012. Mr Ford and Mr Davies also gave evidence at the hearing.
The primary issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the contract has been lawfully terminated and by whom. It is also necessary for the Tribunal to determine the amount of costs to complete the building works under the contract and damages payable (if any) as a result of any breach of the contract.
Did Mr and Mrs Allan fail to pay the progress claim issued by the builder for the fixing stage in breach of the contract?
The builder issued a progress claim for the fixing stage to Mr and Mrs Allan for payment on 16 February 2012[2]. Mr and Mrs Allan, by correspondence dated 21 February 2012[3] wrote to the builder referring to various items that had not been completed and stated, amongst other things, that the works had not reached the “fixing” stage. Mr and Mrs Allan requested that a revised progress claim for the fixing stage be provided. The builder issued a further progress claim for payment to Mr and Mrs Allan on 1 March 2012.[4]
[2]Exhibit marked “10” attachment “19”.
[3]Ibid, attachment “20”.
[4]Ibid, attachment “21”.
There is no evidence before me that the house had not reached the fixing stage as at 1 March 2012 when the second progress claim was issued. Mr and Mrs Allan have referred to various items that they allege were not completed by the builder, by 1 March 2012, in their letter to the builder dated 7 March 2012. Mr and Mrs Allan have, however, elected to continue with the contract by stating in the letter: ‘[w]e are prepared however to move forwards [sic] despite our disappointment with the presentation’.[5]
[5] Ibid, attachment “25”.
Upon receiving the builder’s progress claim dated 1 March 2012, Mr and Mrs Allan did not exercise their rights under the contract in respect of any alleged breach by the builder in issuing the progress claim which included amounts claimed for escalation costs and variations. I draw no adverse inference from the fact that the builder has previously, prior to 1 March 2012, issued a tax invoice for the fixing stage (on 16 February 2012). Mr Mahoney, on behalf of the builder, concedes that the first progress claim dated 16 February 2012 was “premature” as the works had not reached the fixing stage; and (notwithstanding) Mr and Mrs Allan have elected to continue with the contract.
Mr and Mrs Allan are required to pay the builder under the terms of the contract, on receiving a progress claim, a progress payment within the period stated in the contract[6]. Clause 11.8 of the contract provides that the owner (Mr and Mrs Allan) has no right of “set-off under the contract or otherwise”.
[6] Exhibit marked “2”, attachment “1”, Residential Building Contract, Clause 11.
Mr and Mrs Allan did not pay the progress claim within the time prescribed (5 business days) under the contract and have otherwise deducted money claimed by the builder (in the progress claim) in breach of the contract.
On 8 March 2012 Mr and Mrs Allan paid an amount (adjusted by them) of $58,782.70 towards the progress claim. The amount paid by Mr and Mrs Allan did not include an amount claimed by the builder for delay costs of $3,371.10 and amounts claimed by the builder in relation to the supply of tiles (prime cost item of $1,769.00 and extra tiles of $272.10).
Mr and Mrs Allan, in their letter to the builder dated 7 March 2012[7], provided an explanation for not paying the progress claim in full. They wrote to the builder stating, amongst other things, that the delay in relation to the installation of the kitchen cabinets was due to an unavailability of materials and stated that the ‘unsubstantiated cost escalation claim will not be paid and should be deleted from the tax invoice’.
[7] Ibid, attachment “25”.
The builder has by correspondence dated 9 March 2012 given notice to Mr and Mrs Allan of a suspension of the works under the contract on the basis that there has been a substantial breach by them in failing to pay the progress claim. The builder put Mr and Mrs Allan on notice (on 9 March 2012) that if they failed to remedy the breach within 10 business days it reserved its right to terminate the contract.
Mr and Mrs Allan through their legal representatives wrote to the builder by letter dated 23 March 2012 requesting that the builder return to site and stated that an amount of $272.10 (previously withheld by Mr and Mrs Allan) will be paid to the builder in relation to the progress claim. As at 23 March 2012 the outstanding amounts claimed by the builder in the progress claim related to the cost escalation claim ($3,371.10) and tiles claimed by the builder but supplied by Mr and Mrs Allan ($1,769.00). Mr and Mrs Allan in their letter dated 23 March 2012 clearly stated that the tiles were supplied by them.
The builder later filed an application in the Tribunal on 30 March 2012. Mr and Mrs Allan through their legal representatives issued to the builder a notice of intention to terminate dated 13 April 2012 and by letter dated 15 May 2012 notified the builder that they accepted the builder’s repudiation of the contract. Mr and Mrs Allan took possession of the site on 25 May 2012.
Is the builder’s costs escalation claim under clause 26 of the contract valid?
The costs escalation clause forming part of the contract was initialled by Mr and Mrs Allan at the time of signing the contract. Clause 26 is compliant with the relevant section 56 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 applicable for cost escalation claims.
There is no evidence before me that Mr and Mrs Allan were given written notice for the purposes of clause 26 of the contract that the fixing stage was to be finalised by 10 February 2012; and no written notice was given by the builder of any increase in the contract price prior to issuing the progress claim for payment on 1 March 2012,[8] as required under the contract.
[8] Exhibit marked “2”, attachment “18”.
Mr Mahoney gave evidence at the hearing, during cross examination, that Mr and Mrs Allan were given progress of the works “all the way” and that the progress of the contract was “discussed” with them.
The builder relies on an email dated 27 January 2012, sent to Mr and Mrs Allan, for the purposes of giving written notice of the costs escalation. The email states:
…cabinet installation has been cancelled due to you not signing off on the plans/paperwork etc. Just to let you know if we have delays with the building due to cabinet hold up cost escalation will apply. We urge you to finalise this as a matter of urgency.[9]
[9] Ibid, attachment “19”.
The email sent by the builder dated 27 January 2012 does not specify the relevant date for finalisation of the fixing stage and the calculation of any costs associated with the alleged delay for which clause 26 applies. The builder has issued a written notice dated 1 March 2012[10] detailing costs. Clause 26 requires that any increase in the contract price be claimed in the next progress claim. The builder has claimed the escalation costs in the progress claim dated 1 March 2012 without giving the required notice under clause 26. The cost escalation claim under the progress claim is not valid.
Was there otherwise a delay in the installation of the kitchen attracting escalation costs payable by Mr and Mrs Allan under the contract?
[10] Ibid, attachment “21”.
It is agreed that the kitchen cabinets were installed on 29 February 2012. Prior to 1 March 2012 there were delays in relation to the installation of the kitchen cabinetry. The builder argues that the delays were attributable to Mr and Mrs Allan’s failure to sign off on the plans for the kitchen cabinetry and this attracted escalation of costs under the contract for the period from 10 February 2012 to 1 March 2012 (inclusive).
The builder claims there were several variations including changes to the sink and hob removal in the bathroom, and due to the variations amended plans were required and boards for cabinets could not be ordered until the plans were signed. The builder claims the delays in signing the plans delayed the tiler who could not complete tiling work in the kitchen and bathroom.
It is not disputed that the plans for the cabinetry were signed off by Mr and Mrs Allan on 30 January 2012. Mr and Mrs Allan contend, however, that they made the colour selection of boards for the kitchen cabinets in September 2011 when they met with the representative, Mr Darren Stohfeld, from Imperial Kitchens. Mrs Allan does concede, however, that she wanted to check the kitchen plans were in order before signing (the plans) to ensure items were “as agreed”.
Mr Stohfeld gave evidence at the hearing that he did see Mr and Mrs Allan in the early stages, on 6 September 2011, and then handed their matter over to another person in Imperial Kitchens to complete the design and order materials. Mr Stohfeld also gave evidence that the kitchen cabinetry cannot be finalised until the plans and all variations are signed off.
I accept the evidence of Mr Stohfeld that the kitchen cabinetry could not be installed until the plans (for the kitchen) were signed by Mr and Mrs Allan and this did not happen until 30 January 2012.
Mr and Mrs Allan raise other issues, however, in relation to the delay in installing the kitchen cabinets. They argue that the cabinet boards were the wrong colour and they had to be sent back resulting in a delay; and that any delay attributable to a change in plans relating to the plumbing and the removal of the hob were part of the work to be performed by the builder under the contract. The builder disputes this and argues that the works were never stopped and refers to photographs tendered at the hearing.
In relation to the removal of the hobs in the bathroom, Mr and Mrs Allan contend that they had discussed this issue with “Terry” from Urban Homes that there were to be no hobs. Mr and Mrs Allan were charged an amount for the removal of hobs. The builder contends that it was contracted to build a standard home with “standard inclusions” and this included hobs. Mr and Mrs Allan rely on the plans that form part of the contract that (they contend) show no hobs. The builder argues the plans show no hobs as it is standard and there is no reference anywhere in the contract to “no hobs” to (not) be installed. I accept the builder’s submission in relation to the contract making no reference to the removal of hobs. I am not satisfied based on the evidence of Mr Mahoney that Mr and Mrs Allan were in any way coerced into signing the variation in relation to the removal of hobs, as alleged.
There is also an issue about plumbing related to the Portsea sink and other changes to plans that may have contributed to a delay. Mr and Mrs Allan argue the brochure supplied by the builder’s representative does not depict the sink to be included in the construction of the house. There is, however, no mention of an “underslung sink” in the contract specifications. The builder argues the brochure referred to by Mr and Mrs Allan was supplied to them after the contract was signed. The builder also contends that there was no underslung sink on display in the display home viewed by Mr and Mrs Allan. I accept the evidence given by Mr Mahoney that the contract specifications do not include the installation of an “underslung sink” and any changes to the standard inclusions would require a variation under the contract.
I cannot be satisfied based on the evidence before me that Mr and Mrs Allan have contributed to a delay in the installation of the kitchen that would entitle the builder to claim escalation costs. Mr Mahoney gave evidence at the hearing, during cross-examination, that there was an amendment to the plans for the kitchen for the plumbing waste that had been placed in the wrong location. Mr Mahoney also gave evidence that the builder was also attending to rectification issues in relation to the plumbing in late December 2011. The builder has by email dated 23 January 2012 put Mr and Mrs Allan “on notice” about finalising the kitchen plans. Mr and Mrs Allan have signed the kitchen plans within a reasonable time of receiving the builder’s email, that is, the plans were signed off on 30 January 2012.
I accept the evidence of Mr and Mrs Allan that there were other issues such as the plumbing and the supply of kitchen boards which contributed to the delay in the installation of the kitchen. The builder’s contention that Mr and Mrs Allan have contributed to a delay in the installation of the kitchen is rejected.
Was the builder’s claims for the supply of tiles valid?
The builder claimed the amount of $1,769.00 in the progress claim dated 1 March 2012 for tiles already supplied by Mr and Mrs Allan and not by the supplier, Major Tiles. The builder also claimed an amount of $272.10 as extra tiles.
The builder contends that it did not know Mr and Mrs Allan had supplied the tiles. Mr Mahoney gave evidence at the hearing that the tiles were delivered about a week after Mrs Allan went into the supplier’s store, Major Tiles. Mr Mahoney states that the builder issued an invoice about a month later as they do with all suppliers. Mr Mahoney does now concede, however, that Mr and Mrs Allan supplied the tiles and argues that notwithstanding the builder was entitled to make the claim and that an adjustment would have been made at practical completion when the next progress claim was issued.
Mrs Allan, during cross-examination, was unable to confirm whether written notice was given to the builder about the supply of tiles, in response to the builder’s email dated 24 October 2011. The email sent by the builder dated 24 October 2011[11] confirms that Mr and Mrs Allan would get a credit for the tiles but states “please confirm” in reference to them supplying their own tiles.
[11] Exhibit marked “10”, attachment 28.
I accept Mr Mahoney’s evidence that the builder’s email dated 24 October 2011 was not confirmation to Mr and Mrs Allan that they were supplying their own tiles and that Mr and Mrs Allan were to “confirm” the position with the builder. I also accept Mr Mahoney’s evidence that an adjustment in relation to the supply of tiles could have been made by the builder in the next progress claim, at practical completion. Mr and Mrs Allan are entitled to a credit of $1,769.00 for the supply of tiles.
In relation to the issue concerning “extra tiles”, Mr and Mrs Allan paid the amount claimed by the builder ($272.10) on 23 October 2012. Mr and Mrs Allan argue, however, that the tiler measured an amount for extra tiles and there is therefore a credit owing to them in the amount of $272.10. The builder contends that the supply of tiles was a standard order but because of the size and type of tile, extra tiles were needed. There is no evidence before me to contradict the evidence given by Mr Mahoney that extra tiles were needed. Mr and Mrs Allan claim for a refund of $272.10 is rejected.
What are the costs to complete the house under the contract and the amount of damages, if any, payable?
The Tribunal finds that neither party has acted reasonably in relation to their respective obligations under the contract. Mr and Mrs Allan have breached the contract in failing to pay the progress claim, in full, issued by the builder within the time prescribed under the contract. The builder has suspended the works under the contract in respect of Mr and Mrs Allan’s breach. Thereafter, however, Mr and Mrs Allan have attempted to resolve the issues in dispute by making a further payment to the builder and advising the builder in writing, on 23 March 2012, the basis upon which they continued to withhold payment of claims for costs escalation and the supply of tiles.
The contract has clearly come to an end and both parties, by their respective actions, have evinced an intention to no longer be bound by the terms of the contract.[12] Mr and Mrs Allan have breached the contract in failing to pay the builder’s progress claim in full and the builder has, after suspending the works under the contract, filed an application in the Tribunal. Mr and Mrs Allan have, notwithstanding a failure to pay the builder’s progress claim in full, proceeded to terminate the contract and take possession of the building site.
[12] Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620.
The Tribunal has made findings in relation to the builder’s claims for costs escalation and the supply of tiles. That is, the costs escalation claim is not a valid claim under the contract and Mr and Mrs Allan are entitled to a credit for the tiles supplied by them. The Tribunal has also made findings that Mr and Mrs Allan, in failing to sign off the kitchen cabinets plans until 30 January 2012, have not contributed to a delay that would otherwise attract escalation costs under the contract.
Mr and Mrs Allan claim an amount of $109,887.70 including legal costs and witness fees. The legal costs claimed including other miscellaneous costs in relation to the proceedings will be considered by the Tribunal after receiving written submissions from the parties in respect of costs in the proceedings.
The other amounts claimed by Mr and Mrs Allan including loss of rent and loss of fair market value in the amounts of $22,960.00 and $50,000.00 respectively will not be allowed on the basis that Mr and Mrs Allan have breached the contract by failing to pay the progress claim in full within the stipulated time under the contract. Similarly the claims made for interest on additional costs to complete the house and the locksmith charges will not be allowed. The claims made relating to the underslung sink and hob removal are rejected on the basis that the Tribunal has made findings having accepted the evidence given by Mr Mahoney that the contract included standard “inclusions” such as hobs in the bathroom and a Portsea sink. The claim made by Mr and Mrs Allan for pantry cabinets in the amount of $1,900 is rejected on the basis that I cannot be satisfied based on the evidence before me that this is a “false claim” by the builder.
Mr and Mrs Allan have made other claims relating to rectification of “electrical” for the rainwater tank and rubbish removal. These claims are also rejected on the basis that an amount for cleaning has been assessed in relation to the costs to complete the building work. The claim for “electrical” was submitted at the conclusion of the hearing and Mr Mahoney was not given an opportunity to give evidence on behalf of the builder about any alleged defective work. Notwithstanding the late submission of the claims, I cannot be satisfied based on the evidence before me that Mr and Mrs Allan have suffered a loss in support of their claim.
There is also an issue in relation to the survey plan that Mr and Mrs Allan contend show the house was built “out” by approximately 300 millimetres. This claims is rejected on the basis that the claim was made at the conclusion of the hearing. There is also no independent expert evidence before me in support of the claim.
The builder claims the amount of $19,782.50 including loss of profits and costs escalation at the rate of 0.05% per day from the date the works were suspended by the builder. The Tribunal has made findings about the builder’s progress claim and action taken by the builder after suspending the works and having received correspondence and a further payment by Mr and Mrs Allan on 23 October 2012. The builder is entitled to claim any money owing by Mr and Mrs Allan less reasonable costs to complete the building work under the contract.
It is not contested by Mr and Mrs Allan in their statement of evidence or written submissions filed that the amount owing under the contract (the practical completion claim) is $25,860.00. It is agreed there are no defective works. There is expert evidence before me in relation to the costs to complete the building work. The experts, Mr Ford and Mr Davies attended an experts conclave on 9 November 2012 and a joint report was prepared dated 14 December 2012.
Mr Ford inspected the works on 3 June 2012. He also gave evidence at the hearing in relation to the agreed costs to complete the works. Mr Ford stated that the internal painting to the house had not been completed and only some areas externally had been completed. He also stated that the tiling in the kitchen and dining room areas were not “done”.
Mr Davies inspected the works on 16 August 2012. He also gave evidence at the hearing; and assessed the works to be completed based on the cost Mr and Mrs Allan would expect to pay on the retail market.
Mr Mahoney on behalf of the builder argues that the agreed figure (reached by the expert witnesses) should be discounted because the builder could complete the works at a cheaper rate. For example the builder contends that it could source the water tank at a cheaper rate. There is also an issue about some items argued by the builder to not be included in the scope of works.
The Tribunal has identified the items disputed by the builder including items assessed by the expert witnesses in their joint report that the builder argues attracts a discount on the basis that it would cost the builder less to complete the works.
a) Item 1a, Internal painting – the joint experts have assessed this item in the amount of $10,500.00 (plus GST). I do not accept the builder’s submission that the figure should be discounted by 30% on the basis that it would cost the builder a less amount to complete the internal painting. I will allow the amount of $11,550.00 (inc GST) as assessed by the joint expert witnesses.
b) Item 1b, External painting – I accept the evidence given by Mr Ford in relation to the external painting. Mr Ford gave evidence at the hearing that there were some parts externally that had been done. Mr Ford stated that the amount of $5,300.00 (plus GST) was allowed to complete the painting externally including rendering of surfaces and general finishes to surfaces. I will therefore allow the amount of $5,830.00 (inc GST) as assessed by Mr Ford.
c) Item 2a, Electrical work excluding water tank pump – I accept the joint expert witnesses’ assessment of $7,250.00 (plus GST) to complete the electrical work. I do not accept the builder’s submission that this figure should be discounted to $5,240.00. I will allow the amount of $7,975.00 (inc GST) as assessed.
d) Item 2b, Water tank pump supply only – I accept the builder’s submission that the figure of $700.00 assessed by Mr Ford should not be allowed on the basis that the cost of a pump has been included in item number 3c. Item 3c states that the assessed amount is “including pump”.
e) Item 3c, Water tank – Mr Ford gave evidence about this item and agreed that aspects of the work required for the installation of a water tank had been completed including the concrete slab and some downpipe and plumbing pipework had been done. Mr Mahoney on behalf of the builder relies on invoices tendered at the hearing in relation to the cost of a 5,000 litre slimline tank and rainwater tank pump.[13] I accept the builder’s submission that this figure should therefore be discounted and I will allow the amount of $2150.00 (inc GST).
f) Item 3a, Plumbing excluding gas hot water system and water tank – the joint expert witnesses have assessed this item in the amount of $7,317.00 (plus GST). I do not accept the builder’s submission that this figure should be discounted by 10%. Both expert witnesses have assessed the works to be completed and have agreed on a figure. I will allow the amount of $8,048.70 (inc GST).
g) Item 3b, Gas hot water system – I will allow the amount of $1,200.00 (plus GST) assessed by Mr Ford. I do not accept Mr Mahoney’s submission on behalf of the builder that nil amount should be allowed on the basis that the cavity for the hot water system has been installed. Mr Ford has assessed the works to be completed and has allowed the amount of $1,320.00 (inc GST).
h) Item 4, General shower screens and mirrors – I will allow the assessed amount of $1,945.90 (inc GST).
i) Item 5, Cleaning – I will allow the assessed amount of $1,650.00 (inc GST).
j) Item 6, Survey costs – I accept Mr Mahoney’s submission that the builder has provided a survey certificate to Mr and Mrs Allan also tendered by Mr Mahoney at the hearing.[14] I will not allow the assessed amount of $420.00.
k) Item 7, Glass splashback – This item is not disputed. The assessed amount of $825.00 (inc GST) is allowed.
l) Item 8, Certification – I accept the evidence of Mr Mahoney that the builder has the appropriate forms to enable certification to be completed.[15] I will allow nil amount for this item.
m) Item 9, Door hardware – I will allow the assessed amount of $3,034.00 (plus GST). I do not accept Mr Mahoney’s submission on behalf of the builder that this item should be nil on the basis that the builder has “drilled” all doors. Mr Ford has assessed the works to be completed and has assessed this item in the amount of $3,337.40 (inc GST).
[13] Exhibit marked “4”.
[14] Exhibit marked “12”.
[15]Inspection certificates and development approvals were tendered at the hearing, see exhibits marked “8” and “12”.
The Tribunal has assessed the costs to complete the building work under the contract in the amount of $44,632.00 (inc GST). The final amount owing to the builder is calculated as follows:
Money owing under the contract $ 25,860.00
LESS to complete the building work $ 44,632.00
Balance owing under the contract $ -18,772.00
The builder must pay the amount of $18,772.00 to Mr and Mrs Allan within 28 days from the date of this decision. The builder must give to Mr and Mrs Allan all certificates and other items including remote control devices that would otherwise have been provided to Mr and Mrs Allan upon reaching practical completion.
0
2
0